D.5 What causes imperialism?

In a word: power. Imperialism is the process by which one country dominates
another directly, by political means, or indirectly, by economic means.

As we will discuss in the following sections, imperialism has changed over
time, particularly during the last one hundred years (where its forms and
methods have evolved with the evolving needs of capitalism). But even in
the classic days of empire building imperialism was driven by economic
forces. In order to make one's state secure, it had to be based on a
strong economy; and by increasing the area controlled by the state, one
increased the wealth available. Therefore states, by their nature, are
expansionist bodies, with those who run them always wanting to increase
the range of their power and influence. This can be best seen from the
massive number of wars that have occurred in Europe over the last 500
years, as nation-states were created by Kings declaring lands to be their
private property.

Here we will focus mainly on modern capitalist imperialism. As
power depends on profits within capitalism, this means that modern
imperialism is caused more by profit and other economic factors than
purely political considerations (although, obviously, this factor does
play a role). As will be seen in section D.5.1, imperialism serves capital by
increasing the pool of profits available for the imperialistic country
in the world market. This is the economic base for imperialism, allowing
the import of cheaper raw materials and goods and the export of capital
from capital-rich areas to capital-poor areas (in order to benefit from
lower wages and fewer environmental and social controls and laws). Both
allow profits to be gathered at the expense of the oppressed nation. In
addition, having an empire means that products produced cheaply at home
can be easily dumped into foreign markets with less developed industry,
undercutting locally produced goods and consequently destroying the local
economy along with the society and culture based on it. Empire building
is a good way of creating privileged markets for one's goods.

Since capitalism, by its very nature, is growth-based, it must expand
in order to survive. Hence capitalism is inevitably imperialistic. In
pre-capitalist societies, there is often extensive cultural resistance to
the attempts of foreign capitalists to promote the growth of the free
market. However, "primitive" people's desire to be "left alone" was rarely
respected, and "civilisation" was forced upon them "for their own
good." As Kropotkin realised, "force is necessary to continually bring new
'uncivilised nations' under the same conditions [of wage labour]" [Anarchism
and Anarchist Communism, p. 53]

Imperialism has always served the interests of Capital. If it did not, if
imperialism was bad for business, the business class would have opposed it.
This partly explains why the colonialism of the 19th century is no more
(the other reason being social resistance to foreign domination, which
obviously helped to make imperialism bad for business as well). There
are now more cost-effective means than direct colonialism to ensure
that "underdeveloped" countries remain open to exploitation by foreign
capital. Once the costs exceeded the benefits, colonialist imperialism
changed into the neo-colonialism of multinationals, political influence,
and the threat of force (see next section).

As Capital grew in size, its need to expand into foreign markets caused it
to be closely linked with the nation-state. As there were a number of
competing capitalist nations, however, tension and conflict developed
between them for control of non-capitalist areas to exploit. It was this
international competition between developed nations that led to both World
Wars.

After the Second World War, the European countries yielded to pressure
from the USA and national liberation movements and grated many former
countries "independence" (not, we may add, that the USA was being altruistic
in its actions, independence for colonies weakened its rivals as well
as allowing US capital access to these markets). This process was
accompanied by capital expanding beyond the nation-state into
multinational corporations. The nature of imperialism and imperialistic
wars has changed accordingly. Today, instead of direct rule over less
developed nations (which is too costly), indirect forms of domination
are now preferred, with force resorted to only if "business interests"
are threatened. Examples of new-style imperialistic wars include Vietnam,
the US support for the Contras in Nicaragua and the Gulf War. Political
and economic power (e.g. the threat of capital flight or sanctions) is
used to keep markets open for corporations based in the advanced nations,
with military intervention being used only when required.

Needless to say, the Soviet Union also participated in imperialist
adventures, although on a lesser scale and for slightly different reasons.
As can be seen by Russia's ruthless policy towards her satellites,
Russian imperialism was more inclined to the defence of what she already had
and the creation of a buffer zone between herself and the West. Unlike
most Empires, the flow of money was usually out of, not into, the Soviet
Union. The Soviet elite also aided "anti-imperialist" movements when it
served their interests which (along with US pressure which closed off
other options) placed them within the Soviet sphere of influence

Obviously anarchists are opposed to imperialism and imperialistic wars. It
is impossible to be free while dependent on the power of someone else.
If the capital one uses is owned by another country, one is in no position
to resist the demands of that country. To be self-governing, a community
must be economically independent. The centralisation of capital implied by
imperialism means that power rests in the hands of others, not with those
directly affected by the decisions made by that power. Thus capitalism
soon makes a decentralised economy, and so a free society, impossible.

This does not mean that anarchists blindly support national liberation
movements or any form of nationalism. Anarchists oppose nationalism just
as much as they oppose imperialism - neither offer a way to a free society
(see sections D.6 and D.7 for more details)

Direct conquest had the advantage of opening up more of the planet for the
capitalist market, thus leading to more trade and exploitation of raw
materials and labour (and often slavery as well). This gave a massive boost
to both the state and the industries of the invading country in terms of
new profits, so allowing an increase in the number of capitalists and
other social parasites that could exist in the developed nation. As
Kropotkin noted at the time, "British, French, Belgian and other
capitalists,
by means of the ease with which they exploit countries which themselves
have no developed industry, today control the labour of hundreds of millions
of those people in Eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa. The result is that the
number of those people in the leading industrialised countries of Europe
who live off the work of others doesn't gradually decrease at all. Far
from it." ["Anarchism and Syndicalism", in Black Flag number 210, p. 26].

This process of expansion into non-capitalist areas also helps Capital to
weather both the subjective and objective economic pressures upon it which
cause the business cycle (see sections C.7 - "What causes the capitalist
business cycle?" for more on these). As wealth looted from "primitive"
countries is exported back to the home country, profit levels can be
protected both from working-class demands and from any relative decline in
surplus-value production caused by increased capital investment (see
section C.2 for more on surplus value). In fact, imperialism often allowed
the working class of the invading country to receive improved wages and
living conditions as the looted wealth was imported into the country. And
as the sons and daughters of the poor emigrated to the colonies to make a
living for themselves on stolen land, the wealth extracted from those
colonies helped to overcome the reduction in the supply of labour at home
which would increase its market price. This loot also helps reduce
competitive pressures on the nation's economy. Of course, these
advantages of conquest cannot totally stop the business cycle nor
eliminate competition, as the imperialistic nations soon discovered.

This first phase of imperialism began as the growing capitalist economy
started to reach the boundaries of the nationalised market created by the
state within its own borders. Imperialism was then used to expand the
area that could be colonised by the capital associated with a given
nation-state. This stage ended, however, once the dominant powers had
carved up the planet into different spheres of influence and there was
nowhere new left to expand. In the competition to increase sales and
access to cheap raw materials and foreign markets, nation-states came into
conflict with each other. As it was obvious that a conflict was brewing,
the major European countries tried to organise a "balance of power."
This meant that armies were built and navies created to frighten other
countries and so deter war. Unfortunately, these measures were not enough
to countermand the economic and power processes at play. War did break
out, a war over empires and influence, a war, it was claimed, that would
end all wars. As we now know, of course, it did not.

After the First World War, the identification of nation-state with national
capital became even more obvious, and can be seen in the rise of extensive
state intervention to keep capitalism going -- for example, the rise of Fascism
in Italy and Germany and the efforts of "national" governments in Britain
and the USA to "solve" the economic crisis of the Great Depression. As
protectionist methods increased and capital growth stagnated, another war
was only a matter of time.

After the Second World War, imperialism changed under the pressure of
various national liberation movements. As Kropotkin realised, such social
movements were to be expected for with the growth of capitalism "the number
of people with an interest in the capitulation of the capitalist state system
also increases." [Peter Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 26] Unfortunately these
"liberation" movements transformed mass struggle from a potential struggle
against capitalism into movements aiming for independent capitalist nation
states. However, these struggles ensured that capitalism had to change itself
in face of popular resistance and the old form of imperialism was replaced by
a new system of "neo-colonialism" in which newly "independent" colonies are
forced, via political and economic pressure, to open their borders to
foreign capital. If a state takes up a position which the imperial powers
consider "bad for business," action will be taken, from sanctions to
outright invasion. Keeping the world open and "free" for capitalist
exploitation has been America's general policy since 1945. It springs
directly from the expansion requirements of private capital and so cannot
be changed.

Capital investments in developing nations have increased steadily over the
years, with profits from the exploitation of cheap labour flowing back
into the pockets of the corporate elite in the imperialist nation, not to
its citizens as a whole (though there are sometimes temporary benefits to
other classes, as discussed below). In addition, other countries are
"encouraged" to buy imperialist countries' goods (often in exchange for "aid",
typically military "aid") and open their markets to the dominant power's
companies and their products. Imperialism is the only means of defending the
foreign investments of a nation's capitalist class, and by allowing the
extraction of profits and the creation of markets, it also safeguards the
future of private capital.

So, imperialism remains intact, as Western (namely U.S.) governments continue
to provide lavish funds to petty right-wing despots under the pseudonym,
"foreign aid". The express purpose of this foreign aid, noble-sounding
rhetoric about freedom and democracy aside, is to ensure that the
existing world order remains intact. "Stability" has become the watchword of
modern imperialists, who see any indigenous popular movements as a threat
to the existing world order.

This is accomplished by channelling public funds to the wealthy business classes
in Third World countries. The U.S. and other Western powers provide much-needed
war material and training for these governments, so that they may continue
to keep the business climate friendly to foreign investors (that means
tacitly and overtly supporting fascism around the globe). "Foreign aid",
basically, is when the poor people of rich countries give their money to
the rich people of poor countries to ensure that the investments of the
rich people of rich countries is safe from the poor people of poor countries!

(Needless to say, the owners of the companies providing this "aid" also
do very well out of it.)

Thus, the Third World sags beneath the weight of well-funded oppression,
while its countries are sucked dry of their native wealth, in the name of
"development" and in the spirit of "democracy and freedom". The United
States leads the West in its global responsibility (another favourite
buzzword) to ensure that this peculiar kind of "freedom" remains
unchallenged by any indigenous movements. Thus, the fascist regimes remain
compliant and obedient to the West, capitalism thrives unchallenged, and the
plight of people everywhere simply worsens. And if a regime becomes too
"independent", military force always remains an option (as can be seen from
the 1990 Gulf War).

The relationship between the working class and imperialism is more
complex. Foreign trade and the export of capital often make it possible
to import cheap wage goods from abroad and increase profits for the
capitalist class, and in this sense, workers gain because they can improve
their standard of living without necessarily coming into conflict with
their employers. Moreover, capital export and military spending under
imperialistic policies may lead to a higher rate of profit for capitalists
and allow them to temporarily avoid recession, thus keeping employment
higher than would be the case otherwise. So workers benefit in this sense
as well. Therefore, in imperialistic nations during economic boom times,
one finds a tendency among the working class (particularly the
unorganised sector) to support foreign military adventurism and an
aggressive foreign policy. This is part of what is often called the
"embourgeoisment" of the proletariat, or the co-optation of labour by
capitalist ideology and "patriotic" propaganda.

However, as soon as international rivalry between imperialist powers
becomes too intense, capitalists will attempt to maintain their profit
rates by depressing wages and laying people off in their own country.
Workers' real wages will also suffer if military spending goes beyond a
certain point. Moreover, if militarism leads to actual war, the working
class has much more to lose than to gain. In addition, while imperialism
can improve living conditions (for a time), it cannot remove the hierarchical
nature of capitalism and therefore cannot stop the class struggle, the spirit
of revolt and the instinct for freedom. So, while workers may sometimes
benefit from imperialism, such periods cannot last long and "ultimately
the more fundamental and lasting opposition of the working class must come
to the surface. On this, as on other issues, the interest and policies of
capital and labour are fundamentally antagonistic." [Paul Sweezy, Theory of
Capitalist Development, p. 316]

Thus Rudolf Rocker was correct to stress the contradictory (and
self-defeating) nature of working class support for imperialism:

"No doubt some small comforts may sometimes fall to the share of the
workers when the bourgeoisie of their country attain some advantage over
that of another country; but this always happens at the cost of their
own freedom and the economic oppression of other peoples. The worker. . .
participates to some extent in the profits which, without effort on
their part, fall into the laps of the bourgeoisie of his country from
the unrestrained exploitation of colonial peoples; but sooner or later
there comes the time when these people too, wake up, and he has to pay all
the more dearly for the small advantages he has enjoyed. . . [Imperialism
means that] the liberation. . . from wage-slavery is pushed further and
further into the distance. As long as the worker ties up his interests
with those of the bourgeoisie of his country instead of with his class,
he must logically also take in his stride all the results of that
relationship. He must stand ready to fight the wars of the possessing
classes for the retention and extension of their markets, and to defend
any injustice they may perpetrate on other people." [Anarcho-Syndicalism,
p. 61]

It is difficult to generalise about the effects of imperialism on the
"middle class" (i.e. professionals, self-employed, small business people,
peasants and so on -- not middle income groups, who are usually working
class). Some groups within this strata stand to gain, others to lose. This
lack of common interests and a common organisational base makes the middle
class unstable and susceptible to patriotic sloganeering, vague theories of
national or racial superiority, or fascist scapegoating of minorities for
society's problems. For this reason, the ruling class finds it relatively
easy to recruit large sectors of the middle class (as well as unorganised
sectors of the working class) to an aggressive and expansionist foreign
policy, through media propaganda campaigns. Since organised labour tends
to perceive imperialism as being against its overall best interests, and
thus usually opposes it, the ruling class is able to intensify the
hostility of the middle class to the organised working class by portraying
the latter as "unpatriotic" and "unwilling to sacrifice" for the "national
interest." Hence, in general, imperialism tends to produce a tightening
of class lines and increasingly severe social conflict between contending
interest groups, which has a tendency to foster the growth of
authoritarian government (see section D.9).